Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[giblets]

So if a man is attracted to men he has an instinct that's found in over half of the human population?

[Ellestar]

So you're saying raping a 12 yo girl is "normal" since it can result in pregnancy, and having a loving relationship with someone who is infertile is not. It seems your "normal" is disgusting ...

It's normal from a biological standpoint, but it's a taboo, it's a completely different societal mechanics, not instincts. I think i never said that i don't respect taboos.

Actually, i would argue that a taboo "to have sex with a 12 year old girl" and a taboo "for a man to have sex with another man" is from exactly the same category of a sexual taboos. So i would argue that it's the Westerners who don't respect such taboos if they think that Russians should respect the "rights of gays" despite the taboos our society has. No?

Come to think about it, it's actually one of the popular arguments against "the rights of gays" - if people ask for a removal of a homosexuality taboo, then logically next one to remove will be pedophilia or zoophilia taboo. I guess there is no real logic in it though, but it's worth to remember (in case it will actually happen and someone will start such propaganda).

[loinburger]

Is anybody being harmed by two men consensually ****ing each other? If not, then who gives a ****?

[loinburger]

The "mother nature says that butt****ing is sinful" argument is a bunch of horse****. While I'm posting this I'm wearing a polyester leisure suit with vulcanized rubber underwear and eating a turducken covered in aspertame, and mother nature hasn't struck me by lightning yet even though what I'm doing is a thousand times more sinful than butt****ing - monkeys and other non-human animals butt****, but no non-human monkey in the history of the universe has eaten a turducken.

[Bereta_Eder]

It's normal from a biological standpoint, but it's a taboo, it's a completely different societal mechanics, not instincts. I think i never said that i don't respect taboos.

Actually, i would argue that a taboo "to have sex with a 12 year old girl" and a taboo "for a man to have sex with another man" is from exactly the same category of a sexual taboos. So i would argue that it's the Westerners who don't respect such taboos if they think that Russians should respect the "rights of gays" despite the taboos our society has. No?

Come to think about it, it's actually one of the popular arguments against "the rights of gays" - if people ask for a removal of a homosexuality taboo, then logically next one to remove will be pedophilia or zoophilia taboo. I guess there is no real logic in it though, but it's worth to remember (in case it will actually happen and someone will start such propaganda).

http://www.thelocal.de/20130201/47711

I have a strong feeling to tear to germany this christmass I don't know why


Anyway, agreed.
Taboos are different in every society.

However there is love and humanity.

Gays are humans (last I checked)
+
people love eachother they want to get together and have all the rights as everyone else.

Done. next.

[Bereta_Eder]

The bill was faciliated by the death of a known actor. His life long partner didn't have the automatic right to visit him in the hospital.
He had to fall on the good graces of the doctors/nurses etc to allow him, if they chose, to visit him (since he didn't have first degree relationship and no pre-signed paper).

That's unacceptable, no civil servant/doctor/employer should have the right to decide these things.
Political opportunity is very important too. First is society's maturement.
Once this is achieved, then a little bit of political opportunity surely helps things along.
That's state business. Equality for all.

And the right is an homophobic piece of ****.

Here, I have to make special mention of the liberal party, they all voted in favor (despite being "right" )
and express my beweilderement that the communist party voted against

[Aeson]

See, your theories go into specifics like exact age or contraceptive or being fertile. I'm talking from a purely scientific, biological standpoint.

No, you're cherry picking factors, giving them inordinate (total) importance, ignoring all other factors, all to try to support your hatred of homosexuals.

It's normal from a biological standpoint, but it's a taboo, it's a completely different societal mechanics, not instincts. I think i never said that i don't respect taboos.

So your "normal" is a meaningless label that even you say doesn't matter. Yet you felt the need to bring it up and use it to equate homosexuality and bestiality. Because you're a bigot.

Actually, i would argue that a taboo "to have sex with a 12 year old girl" and a taboo "for a man to have sex with another man" is from exactly the same category of a sexual taboos.

That's because you're an idiot. The taboo on a man having sex with another man has nothing to do with ability to consent. The taboo of having sex with a 12 year old girl is entirely about ability to consent. A man having sex with a young boy combines the two, but they are still separate.

The taboo on having sex with those who are not able to consent to have sex is a good one to have. The taboo on consenting adults being able to consent to sex is a bad one that thankfully is on it's way out.

So i would argue that it's the Westerners who don't respect such taboos if they think that Russians should respect the "rights of gays" despite the taboos our society has. No?

Not all taboos have the same moral and ethical backing.

Come to think about it, it's actually one of the popular arguments against "the rights of gays" - if people ask for a removal of a homosexuality taboo, then logically next one to remove will be pedophilia or zoophilia taboo. I guess there is no real logic in it though, but it's worth to remember (in case it will actually happen and someone will start such propaganda).

Yes, it's an argument that small-minded bigots often trot out. So it's no surprise you're making such an argument.

[Aeson]

Here, I have to make special mention of the liberal party, they all voted in favor (despite being "right" )
and express my beweilderement that the communist party voted against

It's not really a left - right issue, it's a libertarian - authoritarian one.

[Bereta_Eder]

I will have to agree

Still I don't think the communist party has any reason to exist anymore. What does it offer to the table if it's so rigid?

It didn't help us when we tried to topple democratically the previous status quo, it keeps saying we're exactly like all the others, all it does is propangating that the state should controlls all resources, it doesn't answer how can this be done without compromising social liberties and when a tiny matter such as gay unions comes along (tiny for us, major for gay people), it also votes against

that is quite a degradation for what it was once conceived as a pioneer of progress (ok, in the '40s but still)

[Ellestar]

No, you're cherry picking factors, giving them inordinate (total) importance, ignoring all other factors, all to try to support your hatred of homosexuals.

I'm "cherry picking" what? Seriously, did you learn biology in school? Well, i guess US education sucks, but in Soviet schools we learned that sex is a part of a sexual reproduction, that's what it was meant for by evolution when it was created.

And i don't "hate" homosexuals, why the hell should i hate them? At worst, i'm against gay propaganda and child adoption by such families. I'm fine with gay marriages as long as they're not called marriages - just call them contract or something (historically marriage is a specific term for a union of a couple with an intent to make children, and same sex couple can't make children, so that kind of union shouldn't be called a marriage). I hope it closes all misunderstandings with my position about same sex relations...

So your "normal" is a meaningless label that even you say doesn't matter. Yet you felt the need to bring it up and use it to equate homosexuality and bestiality. Because you're a bigot.

I don't understand where you think i said it doesn't matter.
And yeah, both homosexuality and bestiality are not normal in the same way - as in, desire to have sex of a kind that can't produce children. That means that there is some mistake in reproductive instincts. I don't understand, where exactly is a mistake in my logic?

That's because you're an idiot. The taboo on a man having sex with another man has nothing to do with ability to consent. The taboo of having sex with a 12 year old girl is entirely about ability to consent. A man having sex with a young boy combines the two, but they are still separate.

The taboo on having sex with those who are not able to consent to have sex is a good one to have. The taboo on consenting adults being able to consent to sex is a bad one that thankfully is on it's way out.

That's correct. However, these same children are not able to consent to be a target of a gay propaganda, so a children's rights should also be protected. And given that children are children, their rights have more priority than gay's rights. That's why i think that gay propaganda and adoptions should be forbidden, and only normal families and marriages should be called families and marriages.

Not all taboos have the same moral and ethical backing.

Obviously.

Yes, it's an argument that small-minded bigots often trot out. So it's no surprise you're making such an argument.

As i said, i don't consider it a valid argument myself (because it's a straw man argument, a logical fallacy), but it's something to keep in mind in case of a future developments - an intentional lifting of one sexual taboo increases a risk of an intentional lifting of other sexual taboos.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

dang, aeson all getting down here with it. go aeson go!

just unleash your dog and chase his asss out of here.

[Aeson]

I'm "cherry picking" what?

You're trying to equate homosexuality and bestiality, because you're one of those small-minded bigots. Rather than look at what they actually are as a whole, you pick a factor they share, pretend it's all-important, pretend that other instances which share that factor don't actually share that factor, and basically ignore everything else.

Seriously, did you learn biology in school? Well, i guess US education sucks, but in Soviet schools we learned that sex is a part of a sexual reproduction, that's what it was meant for by evolution when it was created.

Evolution wasn't "created", it just happens ... and there's no "meant for" in regards to evolution. If 2 homosexuals are having sex, that's the result of evolution every bit as much as if two other people have sex and it results in a pregnancy.

At worst, i'm against gay propaganda and child adoption by such families. I'm fine with gay marriages as long as they're not called marriages - just call them contract or something (historically marriage is a specific term for a union of a couple with an intent to make children, and same sex couple can't make children, so that kind of union shouldn't be called a marriage). I hope it closes all misunderstandings with my position about same sex relations...

You just want to equate their relationships with bestiality, deny them them equal rights, and refer to them wanting to live their lives as "gay propaganda". Sounds like hate to me.

I don't understand where you think i said it doesn't matter.

Because you said you respect taboos. If you respect the taboo on raping a 12 yo girl then you are saying that your "normal" is superceded by the things that actually matter. Like consent.

And yeah, both homosexuality and bestiality are not normal in the same way - as in, desire to have sex of a kind that can't produce children.

So you only have sex when it's specifically to have children?

"Normal" would be masturbation.

That you choose bestiality to equate homosexuality to rather than having sex with birth control or someone you know is not fertile shows clearly what kind of bigot you are.

That means that there is some mistake in reproductive instincts. I don't understand, where exactly is a mistake in my logic?

You personify evolution. It's not a person, it doesn't have intent, it isn't even an entity. You equate homosexuality and bestiality. They are different. You want to elevate "instinct" over choice, pretending only "instinct" (in quotes because it's only a small subset of actual instincts) matters, basically reducing human to unthinking animals ... all to figure out a way to "scientifically" support your hatred of homosexuals.

However, these same children are not able to consent to be a target of a gay propaganda, so a children's rights should also be protected. That's why i think that gay propaganda and adoptions should be forbidden, and only normal families and marriages should be called families and marriages.

Children are not able to consent to be a target of homophobic propaganda, or anything else parents teach their kids. By your logic, if applied non-hypocritically, NO ONE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN. But instead of actually believing the logic you are applying, you are just cherry picking it's use to fit with your homophobia.

As i said, i don't consider it a valid argument myself (because it's a straw man argument, a logical fallacy), but it's something to keep in mind in case of a future developments - an intentional lifting of one sexual taboo increases a risk of an intentional lifting of other sexual taboos.

You don't consider it a valid argument, but you're making it. Equating homosexuality to bestiality based on how they don't result in progeny, to cast homosexuality in an unfair negative light rather than deal with the issue itself. It's good you can see it's a strawman when other people do it, now you just have to realize you are doing it.

[Ben Kenobi]

The taboo on having sex with those who are not able to consent to have sex is a good one to have. The taboo on consenting adults being able to consent to sex is a bad one that thankfully is on it's way out.

Strange position. There are plenty of reasons to discourage sex between otherwise consenting adults. Professionals and their charges being one. Incest being another. There are plenty of professional ethics that are all based on the starting point that it is bad for someone in a position of authority to abuse that position of authority to solicit sex. Want to be a Doctor? Nurse? Lawyer? Teacher? Social workers? Police officers? It's all right there. Even between co-workers and supervisors.

[Aeson]

You're taking the statement out of context. I clearly was referring to the taboo against homosexuality.

Also you're showing you don't really understand what consent is, by bringing up at least some cases where the issue is ability to consent, while pretending it's not about ability to consent. ("abuse that position of authority to solicit sex")

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, then the issue isn't really consent then. That was my point. You're referring to a specific case and not the broader one.

Also you're showing you don't really understand what consent is, by bringing up at least some cases where the issue is ability to consent, while pretending it's not about ability to consent. ("abuse that position of authority to solicit sex")

Erm, my argument is that consent in itself isn't necessarily sufficient. You can have sex with a perfectly mentally able client as a lawyer and still see yourself disbarred for professional misconduct.